Newest email from Mike Bender (PPA)

[protias]

Here is what I sent him:

Michael,

I have taken your level 1 handgun class for the UT non-resident permit. I do admit, I did learn a few things in there, however, firearm proficiency was not one of them. How can a person learn how to be proficient if the only range time is used to qualify for the permit? You say you want people to be safe and I'll take you for your word, however, if a person cannot hit the broad side of a barn, how does that protect them or people around them? I am an avid open carrier in WI and have not had any issues with people. I have had two instances on the same day where law enforcement harassed me for doing what is legal, open carry and following the five places where I cannot carry.

You say you want people to be trained. Well, why do they have to be trained by you? Why can they not be trained by their family or friends? You say you do not believe people will receive training. Then why have Arizona firearm instructors seen more business after Constitutional Carry was passed?
You say you do not want felons to carry. I do not want violent felons from carrying. In Arizona, you can become a felon if your scarf suddenly turns red!


Please respond to this email. I really do want to hear your thoughts on this.

And his response:

Thanks for your note.

You’re absolutely right in that no one has ever become proficient at shooting without regular training. It takes lots of trigger time, live-fire and dry-fire. Likewise, no one has gained or can maintain adequate understanding of laws pertaining to lawful use of force without regular training or study. I suppose that’s why quite a few trainers offer a progressive suite of courses, much like our Handgun and Carbine Academy programs.

You bet I want people to be trained. As for selecting a trainer, there are lots of capable choices. Knowing what to look for is certainly an important part of that. Certainly, acquiring that training from family and friends would seem ideal assuming those doing the training truly know self-defense law and are capable gun handling instructors. Best of all worlds. Can’t argue with that.

As for Arizona instructors seeing more business, I’m glad more folks are getting trained. I think it’s quite possible their increase in business is attributable more to the election of Obama than it is to permit-less carry(like the increases during the same period in sales of firearms and shooting supplies). Who knows? The end result is that more are getting training. Again, best of all worlds. Can’t argue with that either.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. Please let me know more questions.

With best regards,

He thinks that only "qualified" people can train still.

I don't see how more people wanting to get trained after Constitutional Carry passed is related in any way, shape, or form to Obama.

 

[CalicoJack10]

I think it's time to send bender a letter myself. I will post it when I send it.

 

[phred]

Mike, you said to ask questions so here I am.
If what you say is true, that mandated training is a necessity, why then are more states pushing for Constitutional Carry?
Why have we not seen problems with Constitutional Carry in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona?
Why have we not seen a ton of problems with all those who openly carry in Wisconsin?
Surely, by now there should be some evidence to prove that mandated training is necessary, so is there some evidence to support your claims that I don't know about?
Since I have taken all of your handgun classes, how can you possibly say that a person could be proficient after only an initial class to satisfy a permit requirement?
And finally, if safety and training were the most paramount issues at hand, why would you charge $200 or more for a class when you should really be conducting the classes for free because all you really want is safe and free society?
there may be more questions later
thanks ahead for your replies,

After much consternation, I will share his response to the above questions.

Howdy,
Thanks for your note.
I’ll respond to your first two questions with the following:
Having met and trained with you, I certainly don’t count you among the tinfoil hat, black helicopter, distrust-everything-government crowd, but from what witnessed, overheard, and read from a bunch of folks touting permit-less carry, I keep hoping it takes root elsewhere.
To your third and fourth questions:
Wisconsin already has a Poster Boy for the permit-less/training-less carry movement, Jesus Gonzales, formerly a frequent celebrity on the Movement web sites. If only one in 10,000 of the training-less takes similar action should Wisconsin allow permit-less carry, might we see a few dozen such incidents and trials each year stemming from the hundreds of thousands that will eventually be packing guns?
To your fifth question:
You’ve NOT heard me say a person could be proficient after only an initial class. Nor have you heard me say I think a person could be proficient with NO training. What I’m certain many HAVE hear me say is that after being around an abundance of clueless gunslingers and their inherent safety faults and misconceptions of the law, I’m confident too many think they’re ALREADY trained and have no need of more before they start packing. Again, I refer you to my paragraph above about Poster Boy for my thoughts on unwanted consequences.
Also pertaining to your fifth question, I have questions, too:
What’s your basis for believing that ALL the clueless will get training just because you and some others have?
Do you really believe all who will carry also understand WHAT they need to learn, have the knowledge to select qualified trainers, and understand the consequences if they don’t?
Do you really believe that responsible people won’t acquire training simply because of tuition costs, or is it possible that a bunch of them are just taking a stand against anything that smells of government?
To your final question:
It’s within bounds to express disapproval of my profession, even my pricing structure, but sorry, neither argument is convincing after you’ve repeatedly come back to spend your money on my training.
You’re a smart guy and a nice guy, and I’ve enjoyed your camaraderie and business, but you’re wound a bit too tight on this issue. Making a moral issue out of my profession is out of bounds, and I a bit pissed. As I said in my DGU Advisor, people don’t know what they don’t know. I’ll give you a break because you don’t know that Jenifer and I have confidentially given free tuition, gift certificates, reduced tuition, fingerprints, photos, donations, and such to hundreds of the less well off, elderly, college students on tight budgets, active duty troops, and the like. Only the IRS can accuse us of being greedy. If I were of a mind to really piss you off, and for sake of our continuing friendship I wouldn’t, I might try to guilt trip you into getting off the government rice bowl yourself by foregoing that sweet teacher’s pension … all for sake of a free and safe society, of course.
Lighten up. You’re off my Christmas list again this year.
As usual, let me know more questions.

With best regards,

Michael Bender
Personal Protection Academy

 

[springfield 1911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPx6cw-lrKM

Now this is a gunslinger, Haven't met one yet bender.

There they go trying to use Jesus for the poster child for mandated training, Out of the Gene German handbook, Now I don't recall thier names being mentioned as witnesses in any of the statements in the police reports as to what happened that night
They are full of speculation and that's how they want the situation to turn out to back thier claims , As in his posted letter states, To them we are all nothing but a bunch of wanna be gun slingers unless of course we have paid and taken thier training course, By the way Phred, After taking thier course did they present you with a guarantee that should you use lethal force you will not be convicted for using such force? I didn't think so.

What will make a difference in court cases is when people quit being sheeple while serving on jurys and stop seeing thugs as victims.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

Wow, this Bender guy equals FAIL ! With an ELITIST better than everyone mentality like that he must think his crapola don't stink. Many of us here have went voluntarily & received Florida / Minnesota CCW training and beyond. NRA training ( Basic, advanced, etc, etc ) Myself I have taken the BDJA Minnesota CCW class from Bill Schmitz at his home/training facility in Red Granite an Excellent class , taught by an Excellent instructor ! I recommend everyone take one like it, lot's of GREAT information ! I have taken an Action Pistol concepts class & the Advanced class, I have taken a Urban Carbine class, no my & others training level may not be on par with yours but you don't see me or others talking down to people & making everyone but myself out to be a tin foil wearing Moron Cowboy either, any training needs to be voluntary not mandated.
Bender needs to have someone knock that chip off his shoulder !!

This is the stuff I enjoy participating in when I have the time,, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKDvov35s3w . I actually met Ms Randi Rogers & the SHOT show in Vegas 4years ago , she is a real sweet heart & she uses a Glock34

 

[CalicoJack10]

Here is my update from a "Fellow Instructor"

Michael,

I am sending this letter out of concern for the future of my business. I have been following a series of e-mails that you have been sending out regarding the idea of permit-less carry in Wisconsin. I understand that you are an instructor, and have been for the last 10 years or so, and I understand that you want this as a business measure. However as a firearms instructor and business owner myself, I have to express concern for the direction that these discussions are going.

It seems that you would have people believe that if they do not take a prescribed course, we will have gunfights and friendly fire on a regular basis. However, with a significant military background, I have seen firsthand that people with little to no experience with a firearm rarely commit these offenses. And if you take into account the requirements of several of our states (Utah, Florida, Virginia just to name a few) the permit requirements are just enough to make sure the student has a basic knowledge of firearms use, and focus mainly on the laws, you will see that friendly fire and shootouts are not at all common.

Forgive me if I am missing something, because I am fairly new to instructing civilians. But deciding to spend my military retirement doing this for a living, and having potential students express concern over the views of "Firearms Instructors" in Wisconsin based on these e-mails seems the opposite of what we want. I personally got into this field to further our 2A rights, and as a result I teach free firearms classes to LEOs, military, kids, and people who already open carry as a way to make sure we can continue to expand our rights, and hopefully some day, our businesses. After all, getting certified by the NRA and other agencies will only get us so far.

Much like you, I have done extensive reading and research on many of our states, and their laws. Mainly because I travel all over the US, and it is in my best interest to do so. It just seems to me that I am missing something in this equation. The way I see it is that if we don't further our 2A rights, then we will all end up out of business. And I can't see permit-less carry being anything other than the next logical step in this process. I believe that causing people to have to pay to put a coat over the firearms that they can already carry will ultimately make people not want to continue their training with people like you and I in the future.

I don't know what the issue is from your standpoint, so I am asking for clarification so that I am better equipped to deal with the increasing number of people that are concerned with the matter of these e-mails. Is it political, financial, a matter of rights, I just don't get it. I appreciate any help you can offer in this matter.

To which the response was:

Thanks for your note asking for CLARIFICATION of my email broadcast of March 16.

I can only clarify what was included in that broadcast and can't clarify what you allege was included.

For examples:
I haven't broadcast a SERIES of emails about permit-less carry, only one.
That single broadcast said nothing about BUSINESS motivations.
It said I've been instructing for six years, not TEN.
It didn't imply a belief that we'll HAVE GUNFIGHTS AND FRIENDLY FIRE ON A REGULAR BASIS.
It didn't disparage all trainers, Wisconsin or otherwise. Instead, it stated that instruction from SOME trainers is sorely inadequate, very intentionally implying that even after training, many who carry remain unconsciously incompetent with regard to lawful use of force and safe use of equipment.

Constructive exchanges are welcome, but I have neither desire nor time to defend statements not made or positions not stated.

Please feel free to include your last name in future correspondence.

With best regards,

Michael Bender

So it seems to me that this man is obviously under the impression that the only person qualified to train others on the "Use of force and equipment" are instructors that meet his standards. He went into defense mode immediately and refused to respond to the insinuations that he has made in e-mails to several others because he does not want it to be general knowledge that he believes that if you don't train to his standards, you are not capable of carrying a firearm.

As someone who has trained civilians, LEOs, and even combat ready troops, I think that this guy is looking for the "Fear Factor" to be used in the same manner as the Anti-Gunners try to use it. You should be afraid of this, unless we tell you otherwise.

I feel that this is a money monger tactic, and for that reason would consider training with this man to be dangerous because of the lack of information as opposed to the information covered by his courses.

But that is just my opinion. :dude:

 

[springfield 1911]

Thank You CalicoJack10 For seeing that a person mandated to training will not be as benificial as it would be to a person that seeks training because they want to.

Strangely written yes.

 

[phred]

CJ10 - nice letter, thanks for trying to communicate. As expected his reply was, well, as expected. I think we all know what he meant by his original DGU Advisor.

And there are plenty of wannabe gun slingers that have little intention of becoming skilled with their weapons.

A permitted shall-issue training requirement/course will not make them "skilled". If anything, many will find out how "unskilled" they really are, and of course, they'll sign up and take more classes. Unending stream of income.
People who want to learn will voluntarily learn from many different sources. People who just want the "certificate" will go through the motions and won't change their behaviors or mindset. IMMHO